If there was no God to speak of, would people still feel a spiritual, God-like sensation?
I could be wrong in assuming this, but I have had people tell me that humans would likely still feel as though there was a spiritual presence, or at least "something" that was guiding them or giving them wisdom and was responsible for supernatural occurrences, even in the absence of any God or any similar spiritual beings. I have also read books that said humans indeed adapted to feel this kind of sensation over a period of time. In any case, however long in the past this adaptation occurred, what is very apparent is that someone or a group of people at some point decided that the "sensation" was being created by a being whose presence could only be experienced, though it could not be seen or heard. In any case, this being was subsequently given an identity and the name of "God", or an equivalent name which may have been changed or translated at a later time. But this would nonetheless explain the creation of the spirits that are today referred to as Gods, as they took on several different forms and were defined by religions that developed over the years.
I say this only because it makes sense based on the idea that humans would feel a spiritual sensation even in the absence of any God. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people would want to give meaning or significance to this sensation at some point in history, so it can ultimately be said that desire resulted in the first ever God, and that things just took off from there.
Some of you may dispute my theory, but doesn't what I described make a lot more sense then trying to argue if "God" does or does not exist? Everyone is going to have different opinions on this, whereas what I just said just makes perfect sense on it's own and is practically indisputable.
I say this only because it makes sense based on the idea that humans would feel a spiritual sensation even in the absence of any God. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people would want to give meaning or significance to this sensation at some point in history, so it can ultimately be said that desire resulted in the first ever God, and that things just took off from there.
Some of you may dispute my theory, but doesn't what I described make a lot more sense then trying to argue if "God" does or does not exist? Everyone is going to have different opinions on this, whereas what I just said just makes perfect sense on it's own and is practically indisputable.
Comments (50)
I've recently come to the conclusion that the opposite of that experience, a non-rational feeling of abject meaninglessness rather than a non-rational feeling of profound meaningfulness, is what fuels the otherwise nonsensical "what is the meaning of life?" question that so many people have, that feeling of existential angst, dread, or horror. It's a false philosophical non-problem, masking a very real and tragic emotional problem.
I've coined the terms "ontophilia" (love of being) and "ontophobia" (fear of being) for those two feelings, respectively. And inasmuch as "what is the meaning of life?" might mean "what is the purpose of life?", and purpose is just whatever something is good for, and goodness is grounded in hedonic pleasure and flourishing and the avoidance of pain and suffering, I'd say that attaining and maintaining and spreading and cultivating ontophilia, that blissful non-rational feeling of meaningfulness, is itself the pragmatic meaning of life, the highest pleasure we should be striving for and sharing with others.
I imagine that it's highly debatable whether or not that's close to how the concept of God originated. I agree that mystical experiences often lead people to contrive their own religions, like Ontophilism, for instance. :joke: Our natural desire for meaning is insatiable.
I think what I have described is really the only thing that makes sense though, because it actually could be the case without question. For instance when atheists insist that God does not exist, not only is this debatable, but it is also an unknown, as in they only believe that God does not exist, but they cannot know this for sure. Moreover, the "God" that does not exist could also be the same God that is a matter of what I have described. That is, people long ago developed the concept of God to define a spiritual presence that they likely felt and wanted to give meaning to it.
Not only is my description highly plausible, but it would also mean that "God" is indeed no more than the identity given to the spiritual being whose presence was felt by people long ago, and thus would essentially negate the argument of atheists and theists that God does or does not exist, since "God" would in essence only be the name given to a spiritual presence that was felt. Thus, God exists in that aspect, but would otherwise not exist.
If a theist were to simply BELIEVE that God exists, that belief would be without a strong argument, since there is no evidence to support a mere belief, and a belief is disputable by nature.
Noah Harrari in "Sapiens" addresses this issue. I'm open to the concept you put forth.
just because the engine light (mystical experience) in your car (consciousness) can be triggered by playing with the wires (drugs) doesnt mean it wasnt meant to be triggered by the engine (god)
atheists will help you find the real god, by debunking all the false gods
atheism is the fastest path, the only path, to god
its not about meaning
its about evidence and explaining that evidence.
if you are blind to that evidence then you will see no need for any explanations of it
That’s a new one for me. Care to elaborate?
well like i said above atheism is needed to debunk the false gods
false knowledge blocks truth.
I don’t see the need to be vague. If you’re suggesting that there’s a true God, which God is it?
god is not a person. god is not an individual who is separate from you and has a personality who will judge you.
the real god is un-personal spirit that is here now
What research has there been done on mystical experiences experienced by a sober mind? It seems like a phenomenon that could be really hard to pin down through scientific experimentation. I'm asking because you are equating drug-induced experiences to non-drug-induced ones and I am wondering what the basis for that equation is.
To put it briefly, the commonality between mystical experiences and psychedelics is the deactivation of the neural DMN (default mode network). DMN google search link
Imagine the above as a timeless, uniform, unchanging, undivided, ungenerated, indestructible whole and the only thing that exists: The Parmenidean One. Attributing any qualities to it can only be considered fiction. It cannot be considered God because God exists in relation to something else (most relevantly us). If God exists in relation to us then there must be a larger whole that we share.
The impetus to fill this conceptual space with God is understandable, it being the ultimate, and therefore the last refuge for ultimate authority. Can we deny "truth itself"? Yeah, we can.
God didn't die in the Enlightenment, he's alive and well. Ultimate authority died.
a plain dark black picture would be the best.
the mind would see it as nothingness and so die in it
then only consciousness would remain.
We’re basically talking about a concept, and you’re now giving it the qualities of plain, dark, black, and who knows what else.
Also, how can there be consciousness without mind?
I think there may be some listed in the search results in the link I provided.
yes im giving it those qualities. there will always be qualities. u cant get away from qualities. and the qualities i gave are the best to remove mind from consciousness
Quoting praxis
stop thinking and focus. and u will have consciousness without mind haha
I guess that depends on what you call mind. So, what do you think it is?
mind = thoughts
consciousness = awareness
brain = grey matter
3 different things, dont confuse them
And thinking clearly and creatively and productively is a lot easier in such a state because so many connections between so many disparate things just seem so obvious, like I can just clearly and easily see this huge web of interconnectedness and how everything fits together, which just makes me feel both in awe of the world and proud of myself for seeing it, and excited to have realized it, all of which just further fuels the emotional high running throughout all of it. That sense of everything being connected also extends to my own being, and so brings with it a kind of feeling of oneness with the universe, or of bring a mirror of the universe or of seeing oneself reflected in the universe, Atman-is-Brahman style.
In that state, not only do I see all these meaningful connections (some of which still hold up under later, more skeptical scrutiny), but there is just a profound feeling of general, non-rational meaningfulness, like the opposite of existential dread, a sort of magical feeling, sometimes inexplicably attached to mundane things, almost like a kind of deja vu, like a mundane road I walk down suddenly feels like it was the site of some important significant event, when there wasn’t really any that I can remember, so it feels like some kind of almost-recalled memory of a past life or of a forgotten dream. I think of the mashed potatoes scene in Close Encounter of the Third Kind: “This is important. This means something.” But it’s really just potatoes.
What about the subconscious? Does that activity consist of ‘thought’ or is it something else?
observe and you will see what the mind really is
it takes consciousness to observe
the mind can then process what is observed (which includes itself = psychology, meta-cognition)
Why not answer the question?
the mind just records and is a thinner copy of reality
reality is color, sound, feeling, taste, smell
so the mind is a mirror, and echo, a copy, a thinner version of that
that is its content. but not its process
giving answers to whats obvious is a waste of time, and can create confusion, better if u just look and see
Your understanding of how thought relates to mind and consciousness is far from obvious.
You’re free to ignore any questions that make you uncomfortable, of course, but it makes me wonder why a person with such a lack of curiosity would participate in a forum such as this.
i answered your question
reply to my answer if you wish
if u can see, then my answer is not needed
if u cant see, then no answer will ever be enough
Looking at it again, I guess you did. At the end where you wrote, “giving answers to whats obvious is a waste of time...”, I must have mistakenly took as acknowledgement that what preceded it was gibberish.
ultimately nothing can be explained because knowledge is an illusion. its all relative to evidence and if u cannot see that evidence you will never understand or believe the knoweldge that points to it. and if u can see it then you dont need the knowleldge or belief.
What you explain when it comes to this sensation is a possibility. However, I’d like to argue that you would have to include the argument of whether or not God exists.
Let’s say, for example, that God DOES exist on this earth and created humans to have the feeling that they need a deeper purpose or reason for believing in something, whether this be produced by chemicals, a straightforward explanation, or the actual presence of God. We could argue that maybe he would use this “sensation” as a way to get people to search for him, or to bring them closer to him.
But if this world specifically does have God, then how could we imagine what another world would be like if he wasn’t present and we didn’t have that feeling? What theists would argue is that you couldn’t necessarily imagine a world like this because God IS the reason that this feeling exists. Which could come back the actual world we live in.
How could we assume that people would still feel this feeling if there was no God?
You could also potentially include an argument about various worlds in order to further this.
It is possible that this feeling is only a human feeling that just comes along with being one, and that if God did not exist, the feeling still would. But couldn’t it also be possible that God could not exist and humans would not having this feeling? An important part to this argument is that I am not sure that it would be possible for God to exist and the feeling to not, it seems that these two things are paired.
If we were to assume that God does exist, it would make sense that he would create us specifically in this way. If he didn’t, many people could possibly miss out on pursuing him.
This adaption you talk about, could be argued to have grown from a slow disconnect from God over time.However, I do believe that you could also argue that there is a possibility that people gained this feeling slowly over time and God just so happened to fill the role- like you said. But when exactly this started would be important to note on this side of the argument. I wouldn’t say that it’s necessarily “apparent” that things could have happened this way- it would depend on how you looked at it. It is also possible that God was already around and known by many, and that they just provided the answer of God to those that had the sensation but didn’t know why yet.
I, for one, believe that yes, you're wrong in assuming this.
I have had that experience you had (which is a kind of psychic claim)
and I know it wasn't caused by God (in this instance) when I had it
so I know that other people are not experiencing God.
I don't think god's existence or lack of existence should or could be decided with a feeling. It is impossible to decide whether god exists or not. There is a fifty percent chance that it does and fifty that it does not.
If god manifests, it can be chalked up to illusion in people. If god does not manifest, which is the historical and present case, then there is nothing to go on. It is not impossible that god exists, and it is not impossible that no god exists. Empirical evidence to the existence of god, once empirical evidence is extant, can be discounted.
The only way to approach the god question and the knowledge whether one exists or not, is via belief.
If there was no God to speak of, would people still feel a spiritual, God-like sensation?
God does exist. You are God.
Oh, shucks. Why is @BBQueue and @PfHorrest always god? Why can't I be god once in a while? Not fair. (Sucks his thumb in a defiant way.) :-)
The topic assumes that god exists. It does not claim god exists; but proposes to deal with the topic in light of assuming that god exists. It is a given. Look at the wording.
It is impossible to talk about this topic in this thread not thinking or not accepting, even for argument's sake, that god does exist. There is a word to describe this way of thinking and dealing with a topic, but I never memorized it. It's a damn good word.
But this way you squeeze out about half of the participants in this forum, who, out of principle, never would assume god exists.
Those participants can easily just avoid the topic, or join in the thought experiment. Given that it is the assumption, it is not as if they are be cornered into chaning their minds or seeming to.
Absolutely.
Based solely on the evidence of the history and capacities of consciousness, I am a solid advocate of personal consciousness-development, a.k.a spirituality. Can consciousness evolve to become more than it is? Absolutely. Are such experiences "divine?" I guess that depends on the person and the experience. From my own personal 'enantiodromia', I would say...close enough.